She'll play from the men's tees ...

[Tim Weiman]

DMoriarty:

The problem is Whaley herself claims to be "the first woman to qualify for a PGA Tour event". Whaley didn't say she made it by a sponsor's exemption. Rather, she talked about her chance "to make history".

There is doublespeak going on here, a bizarre form of denial. Some people, perhaps the CT section included want a politically correct story even to the point of obscuring the truth.

I think you underestimate the young women I spoke to. In fact, they did express that if women were allowed to play on the PGA Tour, men should be allowed to play on the LPGA. Pretty fair and reasonable of them, don't you think?

Like Tom Paul, I think the idea of handicapping a professional sports event makes little sense. My very feminist mother called the whole idea "strange". That must be where I got my "irrationality" from.

[Doug Siebert]

I fail to see why some people are so bent out of shape by this.  Other than possibly the guy who blew up and fell to second behind Whaley, who should conceivably have a problem with this?

Everyone has followed all the rules and traditions as they have previously existed.  She played in a tournament that specified she could play from shorter tees, she won under those rules.  The sponsor always invites the winner of that tournament to play in the GHO under a sponsor's exemption, so she's doing so.  Whining about her saying she "qualified" if you think what she did doesn't meet your personal definition of that word is pretty stupid, how is she hurting anyone?  The tour loves it, the sponsor loves it, I'm sure the network will love it as well (at least whichever cable network gets it on Thurs and Fri)  If you think it is wrong that she won playing from shorter tees, fine, but you don't get to make the rules for that tournament.

So what if she shoots a couple rounds in the 80s and misses the cut by a couple dozen strokes?  Do you think the guy who placed second to her would have made the cut?  Or allowing one more "legitimate" Monday qualifier instead of her?  Don't fool yourself thinking they had any chance either.  If the tour was truly concerned with having the best possible field for every event, they'd require everyone to qualify before the tournament and do away with the top 125 exempt thing.

Hootie ought to invite Annika Sorenstam to play the Masters next year, just to fuck with everyone on both sides of the Burk and Whaley issues...

[Hootie]

My goodness, golfers sure have problems accepting women now don't we? But this has gotten out of hand. You guys are wasting precious ink on this thread when there hasn't been a word written about me here all day. Enough already. Let's focus guys. Let's focus. Back to Augusta. Thank you kindly.

[Jim_Kennedy]

Tim and Tom,
Suzy Whaley may think she qualified due to her win at the section championship and that is her outlook. She is  the recipient of a sponsor exemption given to the section by the tournament director. I think that there is no question she played under the rules of golf in this sectional event but she did play from different tees.
  
Here's a little spin for you: Suzy Whaley is the first woman to play in a PGA Tour event since the split with the PGA of America happened in 1968.
Babe Didrikson was named by Bobby Jones as one of the top ten golfers that he had ever seen and her lifetime accomplisments were amazing.
I said earlier that Babe Didrikson qualified for the LA Open. Some further research makes me question my remarks. When she played in the 1938 LA Open she was the only woman in the field but she needn't have been. The tournament was an Open event and there was nothing banning a woman from playing. She played in a group with George Zaharias (future hubby) and Reverend C. Pardee Erdman. Does anyone know if this wrestler and  minister were on the tour at this time or perhaps Babe and others just ponied up an entry fee and played?

This from Tim:

I think you underestimate the young women I spoke to. In fact, they did express that if women were allowed to play on the PGA Tour, men should be allowed to play on the LPGA. Pretty fair and reasonable of them, don't you think?

No, I don't think it's reasonable nor is it fair nor do I think these youngsters have lived long enough to have a true understanding of why they have their present day opportunities.
As I said earlier, the Tour divisions exist so players can compete with their peers. This is no different than weight classes in boxing with the PGA Tour as the heavyweights.
There is no reason to limit anyone's aspiration to try for the top rank if they are up to the task but there is good reason to limit particpation on the reverse side of the equation for the same reasons we don't let 14 year old boys play in Little League Baseball with the 10-12 year olds.

This should be as simple to understand as 1+1 ='s 2.  

[DMoriarty]

The problem is Whaley herself claims to be "the first woman to qualify for a PGA Tour event".

Tim, funny how your problem keeps reinventing itself.  If Mrs. Whaley really thinks she qualified in the same sense as the other qualifiers, then she is wrong. I agree that the "first woman" business is misleading and unfortunately ignores a truly great golfer's accomplishments. But in a technical sense Mrs. Whaley is correct. As I understand it she is the first since the current entity controlling these tournaments was formed (1986?).  A Bulls--- way to look at it, but technically true.

There is doublespeak going on here, a bizarre form of denial.

I couldn't agree more about the double speak, but I do think you misidentify the speaker.  I don't understand your obsession with turning this into yet another anti-political correct diatribe.  Is everything you don't agree with political correctness run amuck?  Talk about conspiracy theorists!

I think you underestimate the young women I spoke to. In fact, they did express that if women were allowed to play on the PGA Tour, men should be allowed to play on the LPGA. Pretty fair and reasonable of them, don't you think?

If these women really said this then I overestimated them, not underestimated them.  Perhaps you should invite them all to post on the issue so we can explore their enlightened perspective.

Like Tom Paul, I think the idea of handicapping a professional sports event makes little sense. My very feminist mother called the whole idea "strange". That must be where I got my "irrationality" from.

Well, we've come full circle at least twice.  I will not go full circle again.  Your irrationality (and TEPaul's if he agrees with you) is that you are treating a member's tournament of professional association of golf instructors as a "professional sports event."  

My very feminist mother called the whole idea "strange". That must be where I got my "irrationality" from.

You talked to your mother?  Well, then everything you've said must be entirely correct.  I know my own mother is never ever wrong.  
Seriously Tim, I am finished.  I just can't compete against someone who bases their arguments on the opinions of a slew of unidentified competitive female golfers (with whom you seem to have spoken for hours on the issue); the sentiments of the entire Pittsburg sports fan community, and your dear old mother.  

Have a nice week.

[TEPaul]

Tim Weiman:

If I were you I'd just let that discussion with DMoriarty go! It's beginning to look like a debating society out of control.

I don't even know anymore how Suzy got into the GHO--nor do I think I care. But if she, in fact, got in through that tournament, that qualifier, whatever it was and whatever anyone wants to call the people who run it--an association of members, a group of friends, whatever, that tournament was not played under the Rules of Golf and it should have been.

That's about the only issue here, on this thread that I can see of significance. If that tournament had nothing whatsoever to do with Suzy's entry into the GHO then there's no issue here I can see, except of course to wonder why some professional tournament (that CT section qualifier, or whatever it was) would think to conduct a professional tournament other than in compliance with the Rules of Golf!

If DMoriarty doesn't think it's unimportant that that tournament was not played under the Rules of Golf--then fine, let him have that opinion!

I don't agree with it and I don't think you do either--but big deal, there're all kinds of opinions out there and there always will be.

[Tim Weiman]

Tom Paul:

I understand your suggestion. Like Doug Siebert, I fail to see why some people "are bent out of shape" and so obsessed with maintaining the party line. But, that is common with many issues when political correctness is introduced.

Jim Kennedy/DMoriarty:

I think we are finished with this topic, but just a little background on young women golfers in my area. What impresses me most is how dedicated they are, perhaps I should say young golfers, both male and female.

I see them practicing year round at a local driving range. Both the boys and girls believe practicing nearly everyday all year round is mandatory to be competitive. What is truly amazing is that these aren't just high school juniors or seniors but also kids in junior high, even grade school to my amazement.

Not long ago I met a women who teaches golf. It turns out she is the women's coach at a local high school and, by coincidence, a teacher at the primary school where my fourth grade daughter goes to school.

Seeing that her father had a love for golf, this women wanted permission to talk to my daughter about the high school girls golf team. My God, I thought, my daughter is in fourth grade and already a high school coach is trying to start recruiting.

In a very serious tone this women stated that if her program was going to improve and grow, that is the kind of thing she needed to do. She also felt the only way my daughter would ever be competitive would be to start working on it now. Further, she pointed out how many grade school kids, both boys and girls, already had instructors they saw once per week to help them learn and be successful later.

One of the young women I spoke to was in eighth grade and already hitting 200-300 balls a day and she said "the really good kids are hitting more".

All in all, the young people I met seem to be a very nice group of people, very hard working and have set high goals for themselves. My only worry is whether they will get burned out and not enjoy golf so much in their later years.

But, as it relates to the Whaley matter, you can easily see how they have adopted an ethic that says you have to work and earn success. I think they oppose handicapping a la Whaley because they aren't being denied the right to play and instinctively believe people should only get what they work for. People like that are likely to feel "if women can play in men's tournament, then men should be able to play in womens.......but the entire thing doesn't make sense".

Call that "irrational", but I see these young people as pretty impressive.

I grew up trying to sneak on the golf course and stay away from grumpy adults who didn't think young kids had any business on the course. These kids are growing up in a very different world.

DMoriarty:

One last thing. I'm aware that it sounds strange to quote one's Mom, but I like to touch base with her on such matters. She has far better feminist credentials than I do.

[Andy Hodson]

Tom Paul
You're hitting it right on here, with the issue being whether one agrees or disagrees with the way the sections of the PGA administer their tournaments. Its not whether Suzy  "qualified"  , or whether a woman should be allowed in a PGA Tour event when there is the LPGA, etc. I happen to disagree with your view on this issue, but let's remember that is the heart of the matter.

BTW, the South Texas section has a member QUALIFIER for two spots in the Shell Houston Open (I believe most tour stops do this for their respective sections). Everyone plays from the same tees for that qualifier. The section championship that Suzy won is not seen as a qualifier for a Tour event, rather its just a section event that all members can play in. And the PGA and its sections have determined rules to make it more equitable (critics don't jump on that word) for all. Agree or disagree with that.

[TEPaul]

Tim:

Isn't it true on this entire issue and this thread and discussion regarding some of the things you've said in the last few posts about what you've observed from the kids you speak of that they're content to and accepting of the fact that in a golf tournament ALL competitors, either men or women, if they are competing against each other within a single golf tournament, should PLAY BY THE SAME RULES and that those rules should be THE RULES OF GOLF? Playing from different tees is not playing by the same rules in the context of a scratch tournament!

Isn't that the only real issue on this discussion? I can't really see why anyone would suggest it be otherwise!

They're talking about things like "leveling the playing field" but there's only one way to "level the playing field" in the context of golf at scratch and that's ONLY that EVERYONE play be the same rules! That's certainly clear in golf's unified rules book!

But they're talking about things like "inherent disadvantages" of individual golfers! My God, I used to have to tee it up in tournments played at scratch under the rules of golf against people like Jay Sigel! I could probably claim that I always had an "inherent disadvantage" against him, a lot of us did, but so what?

If it were otherwise how would we ever know that he was one of the great amateur golfers of modern times? How would any of us know how we compared to him at any time. The only way is to play under the exact same rules from the same tees with no consideration other than that given to "leveling the playing field"--which is nothing more than playing the same course (same tees) by the same rules!

[Dan King]

TEPaul, specifically what Rule of Golf was broken by the tournament where Whaley qualified?

Dan King

If your adversary is badly bunkered, there is no rule against your standing over him and counting his strokes aloud, with increasing gusto as their number mounts up; but it will be a wise precaution to arm yourself with the niblick before doing so, so as to meet him on equal terms."
  --Horace Hutchinson  (Hints on Golf)

[Tim Weiman]

Tom Paul:

Jay Sigel has an "inherent advantage" over me too.

But, let me respond to your earlier comment about a debating society.

During my years at Princeton I was quite fortunate to be a student of Professor Suzanne Keller, one of the most respected academic feminists of the 1970’s. Keller taught a course on sex roles in society. The course, as you might imagine, was dominated by very bright women who felt quite comfortable in Keller’s class and usually intimidated the male students.

Believing that it was better to engage than sit on the sidelines, I often found myself at the middle of debates on various topics that Keller would introduce to get the dialogue going. While I didn’t mind the discussion, over time I noticed it became adversarial to the point of being unpleasant.

So, one day I decided to keep my mouth shut and listened for about 45 minutes while one point of view was being repeated without debate. It seemed that my silence had the effect of shutting down other male students who apparently had no desire to debate - and be portrayed as dinosaurs - on their own.

Shortly, before the class ended for the day Professor Keller, always one to encourage her students, had enough. “Tim”, she asked, “why are you sitting quietly?”  Duly provoked, I launched into a diatribe on why I disagreed with the many single minded points that I heard expressed.

I’ll never forget Professor Keller smiling when I finally finished.

“You really wanted to sit quietly, didn’t you?” Keller said.

“Well, yes, I did”.

But, Keller would have none of that.

“Tim , I don’t want people sitting quietly in my class” she said, expressing a higher loyalty to being a teacher than being a feminist.

Other than Fouad Ajami, the well known Middle East expert who served as my thesis advisor, Keller emerged as my favorite professor at Princeton, a woman I thought the world of. Though very feminist, Keller abhorred the politically correct feeling it had no place in her classroom or in any other discussion. So, years later I have little concern about expressing unpopular views some find “irrational”, thanks, in part, to Professor Keller.

The young women I've met dismiss the idea of anyone being allowed to play from different tees in competition. I have a feeling Professor Keller would view them as her kind of feminist.

[TEPaul]

Andy Hodson:

Thank you for clearing that up. I've been a bit slow on the uptake on this thread because I came on here late and I still haven't read all of the previous pages and I never had followed the Suzy Whaley issue other than on here.

But you've outlined the issue very clearly! I believe that in any particular competition that is being considered let's say a "scratch" one that everyone should play by the same rules even if that happens to be a woman. I believe that all golf should be played by the same rules to the maximum extent that golf organizations can get golfers to do that! I believe the game is simply more understandable and enjoyable that way and I think that's been well proven for a very long time.

I hate to see golfers not play by the rules but if for some reason doing otherwise makes them happy, that's fine. However, I see no need, no reason for any club, organization, association to get into proposing that golf should not be played in compliance with the rules.

It would seem from what you've said that some may have done that possibly for various reasons of "social engineering" or whatever, and I think that's wrong and unnecessary. But these associations or whatever are certainly independents and can do what they want--but I still think it's wrong for golf and ultimately golfers to fail to play under the rules of the game.

Of course I would never propose that men tour players play in LPGA events! That simply makes no sense to me. But if for some reason a woman believes she can play in a men's tour event, and she manages somehow to qualify on an equal footing, there's no reason I can see to exclude her provided she plays under the same rules as everyone else in all competitions that have anything to do with each other.

"Handicapping" is a well known element in golf but scratch golf and scratch tournaments are the complete antithesis of handicap golf and those distinctions should be kept crystal clear now and in the future as they have been in the past.

The various forms of golf are just part of what makes the game more fascinating and they should never be skewed and made to combine, in my opinion, and it would seem that the CT section and maybe some others have started to try to do that in some ways and I definitely disagree strenuously with that.

But if you agree with it then you do--and even your reasons I can certainly understand although I do not agree with them either as I think ultimately it just weakens the good things about golf.

But the game will hopefully survive regardless of whatever each of us thinks. There has been plenty of diversity of opinion in golf before and it has continued to survive.

[TEPaul]

Tim:

Great post on Professor Keller! I love stuff like that on here!

I only made the remark about the debating society out of control because I was reading DMoriarty's reponses to the quotes he inserted of yours.

With many of his responses, for me anyway, it wasn't a matter of me agreeing or disagreeing with what he was saying--I just thought he was all over the place, bringing apples into an orange discussion and whatnot. In a debate, a formal one anyway, it's sort of important to stick to the subject of the debate and not to bring points or things into that subject that don't relate, and to say at the same time that he doesn't even know why he's posting (or debating) as the whole thing seems ridiculous to him anyway.

Anyway, it doesn't really matter to me--anyone can have any opinon they want to as far as I'm concerned.

Now, I'll probably be roundly taken to task for acting arrogant and opinionated and irrational for making a post like this! Oh well, all things pass!

[Tim Weiman]

Tom Paul:

Professor Keller probably accounts for my views on the Augusta matter as well, the fact that (a) I see nothing wrong with single sex sports clubs but (b) were it left to me, I would boot out all the male corporate entertainers and invite real women golfers in their place.

Professor Keller would probably be happy, but somehow I don't think Martha Burk has such a solution in mind.

[TEPaul]

And I'm sure Professor Keller would probably account for your views too on ANGC if they happened to be the opposite of what they are!! That's important!

Professor Keller probably approves of Martha Burk's ability to express how she feels about ANGC too although Professor Keller herself might not agree with her!

I think Professor Keller would probably approve of DMoriarty's expressing of his opinions too although perhaps she might say to him;

"Mr Moriarty, express away but would you kindly try to stick to the subject of the discussion here, instead of informing us how irrational someone's opinion is and the fact that you feel you'd rather not be here?"

[Tim Weiman]

Tom Paul:

Keller might account for my views but that certainly doesn't mean she would agree!

Were we to discuss the matter, I'd want to take her to Ballybunion first. There one can find (a) a club which doesn't discriminate, (b) a tendency for men and women to voluntarily play only with members of their own sex and (c) a general absence of corporate/business entertainment.

Of these characteristics, I'm partial to "c", the kind of get away from work environment that Hootie Johnson alluded to in the Wall Street Journal.

The problem is Augusta actually welcomes the corporate entertainers, where Ballybunion doesn't have that as part of the club culture.  

Friends of mine who do a lot of business entertaining don't see how you could ever have what Hootie claims. Hence, they don't like my view that if you want a single sex club, keep business at the gate.

But, I think it is a cultural thing. A club can truly be a place to relax, play golf and get away from it all. Both the men and women at Ballybunion prove that.

[card and pencil]

If we didn't keep score, we would not need the Rules of Golf in general. And we wouldn't have fourth graders being pushed to hit 200 balls a day by a high school math teacher. And I dare say, Hootie would not bother changing Augusta's architecture and frustrating GCAers everywhere.

Hey Tom--I like your enthusiasm. But I wonder, have you rubbed off the exclamation mark on the exclamation mark/number 1 type key yet???!!!!

[John_Conley]

John Conley:

What're you talking about sponsor's exemptions for? Has any sponsor's exemption ever been compensated for from different tees because they were deemed to be "inherently disadvantaged? And who said Andy Hodson wasn't entitled to his own opinion? I hope you don't think disagreeing with him implies he's not entitled to his opinion.

Tom:

I'm talking about sponsor's exemptions because Suzy Whaley is receiving one.

Do you know who has been awarded sponsors' exemptions in the past?  Mark Rypien won the Celebrity Tour event one year in Tahoe and was playing at Avenel the next.  (Sure, he played the same tees as everyone else IN THAT EVENT, but any serious golfer knows an under-par score in a CPT event was not the same golf as a PGA Tour member who misses a cut and was under par for 36 holes.)  The GHO regularly awarded a spot to a AJGA player because of Canon's sponsorship of both.  Local tournaments will sometimes use a spot for a player who recently was a college standout.  

Is course setup for junior and college events the same as it is for the PGA Tour?  Obviously not, so why should success in one of these lower areas lead to a free pass to play in the big league?  (I can answer this if you can't figure it out - In return for ponying up millions of dollars, the sponsor is allowed to invite a few people that may help generate interest and attract fans to the event.)

The criteria for a sponsor's invite is very generous.  That the GHO, a tournament really struggling for funding, didn't rescind the invitation (a long standing tradition) to a Section player who happens to be female is not a surprise to me.  I don't know why it is to so many others.

[TEPaul]

John Conley:

I'm not talking about the issue of sponsor's exemptions at all--zippo! If you are or that was a point of discussion on this thread, then I'm sorry, I missed it--I should have read this thread more carefully.

All I said was I don't care who gets into a particular tournament like GHO or how, once they tee it up they do so under the same rules as every other competitor--end of point!

At first, I thought Suzy was going to play from different tees at GHO, but apparently not.

But I do question why the CT section of the PGA would want to play any tournament they run with competitors playing under different rules which includes from different tees, no matter who they are which includes a woman.

That was all. Sponsor's exemptions have nothing to do with any point I was trying to make.

[John_Conley]

Tom:

You pretty much agree with me then.  The PGA of America allows its female members to play from a forward tee - and I'm sure they have their reasons.  (They do, and I have not heard of many PGA of America members that disagree.)  The PGA Tour does not allow participants to play from a forward tee - and I'm sure they have their reasons.

Some people want to twist this and say it isn't right that she qualified.  The media uses that word often and Miss Whaley has used it herself.  If you take qualified to mean advanced through a qualifier (as I do), she DID NOT qualify.  She won an event that qualified her to receive an invitation.

If you say she qualified for the GHO, then you have to say that Don Pooley qualified for the U.S. Open when he won the U.S. Senior Open.  If that person is a "qualifier", what is someone who advanced through Local and Sectional Qualifying?  (The USGA considers Pooley "exempt from qualifying", which would seem to make him something other than a qualifier.)

I don't consider "earning an invitation" to be "qualifying" when there are tournaments called QUALIFIERS for these events.  If you'd like to, the GHO will have a Monday 4-spot qualifier just prior to the event.  And I'm certain all entrants will play from the same set of tees.

Where was all this outrage when Suzy Whaley missed the cut at the CPC this summer?  There she did play from a forward tee.

[Tim Weiman]

Card and pencil:

Admirably, you have tied the matter back to architecture.....far better than I have in this discussion.

But, I agree with you for other reasons. My nephew is a junior in high school and plays on the basketball team. He would also like to be on the school's debating team, but is prevented from doing so because he plays basketball.

Amazingly, the school doesn't feel a student can do both. They want each student to focus on one activity so they can excel and the school is positioned to win competitive events.

Crazy in my book, but real. That's the world young people, including young women golfers, are growing up in.


John Conley:

I appreciate your effort to clarify matters that have been blurred in the press and by Whaley herself, but wonder why you use the word "outrage". Does disagreement mean outrage?

[Dan King]

TEPaul writes:
Of course I would never propose that men tour players play in LPGA events! That simply makes no sense to me. But if for some reason a woman believes she can play in a men's tour event

Just to make one thing clear, the PGA Tour is not the Men's Professional Golf Association. There is no sex restriction in the PGA Tour bylaws (there was many years ago.) The PGA Tour is the tour for the best players playing in America (who are over 18.) If a woman played well enough to qualify for the tour, there is no restriction on her becoming a member.

TEPaul, I'm still wondering what Rule of Golf is being broken by the Ct. PGA when they allowed men to play from one set of tees and women from another. I've skimmed the rule book and can't find the specific rule. Please help.

Dan King

"We played all our competitions off men's tees. We played country  matches off men's tees, we played our county championship off men's tees, we played our championships off of men's tees. What do they do now? They play from the up women's tees. Today they say, 'Oh, we can't make it too tough, otherwise people won't want to play.' It's easy to drop standards and it's hellish hard to get them up."
 --Enid Wilson

[Tim Weiman]

Dan King:

Interesting points you raise.

Are you saying that the PGA Tour does not discriminate on the basis of gender but the LPGA does? If that is the case, isn't it time to eliminate sex discrimination on the LPGA Tour?
Martha Burk points to Augusta and raises the "extension of the workplace "argument, correctly, in my view. But, the LPGA goes even further than Augusta: it's not an "extension", it IS the workplace.

Second, I'm no expert on the rules of golf, but you appear to be saying that nothing in the rules prevents a man from teeing off from a different (and shorter) set of tees than fellow male competitors.

Is this permitted in the US Open? Is this a loophole that needs to be formally closed?

[Jim_Kennedy]

Tim,
Please, give it a rest. You know exactly why the Tours have divisions, so peers can compete with peers.  I don't think that the menat the top of this chain worry about women somehow taking over their turf, do you  

[John_Conley]

John Conley:

I appreciate your effort to clarify matters that have been blurred in the press and by Whaley herself, but wonder why you use the word "outrage". Does disagreement mean outrage?

Tim:

Now we are getting into semantics.  I understand your point.  To me, a disagreement is something people can accept and then move on.  This thread is about to move to the 5th scroll.  I take that to mean people are passionate enough about the topic to make outrage[/i] an appropriate word.  (John touches off a tangential debate on what constitutes outrageous behavior.)

Someone makes a valid point and is told the beliefs are "bizarre"?  Some of us repeat ourselves over and over, trying to make a point.  Qualifies as outrage to me!

My frustration in even trying to argue this point is that too many people don't even know the facts that led to this situation.  Who is YOUR disagreement with?

The PGA of America for allowing its female members a distance concession in their organization's events?

The Greater Hartford Open for using a sponsor's exemption for the person their PGA Section recognizes as champion?

The GHO for not rescinding the invite upon learning the Section's champion is female?

The PGA Tour for not getting involved by taking the unprecedented step of disallowing a sponsor's invite to one of their events?

Suzy Whaley for "asking" for such a concession?

A lot of people have said, "It's not right/fair for her to qualify for a Tour event from a different set of tees."  How do you even begin to address them?  It is clear they don't understand what happened.

Let me go through the various people or groups that may be considered at fault.

The PGA of America is actually being progressive in providing equal opportunity for all of its members.  Since their events are closed, only members of their group are affected by the participation of females.

This is standard practice on Tour, and affords a little "local flavor" for otherwise mundane Tour stops.

To do so would actually BE discriminatory.  "We ordinarily respect the Section's ability to identify the golfer they consider 'Champion', but in this case they have failed and we will not be inviting the supposed winner this year."  That'd go over REAL well with half the population.

With Augusta National and the Masters as a backdrop, do you actually expect Tim Finchem and Company to do that?

I'm not even convinced Whaley realized an invite to the GHO would be coming if she won.  She has never gloated and asked a lot of people if it was a bad idea before she accepted.  There really hasn't been much public resistence to her participation.  Telling her that she shouldn't accept such a novel invite is a bit meddlesome in my eyes.

I have a bet she finishes last.  I am very happy she has decided to play and think it will be good for the Tour to have solid support for this event, even if it is for a hokey reason.  But I still think she'll finish last, and I'm not going to be one to say she doesn't have that right.

Tell me where I'm wrong and I'll listen with all ears open.